Right Thinking from the Left Coast

Removing The Citizenship Clause

Hal’s latest post about the Lee Amendment got me thinking (I know, caution, flying debris, clear the room) about the amendment process in general. The idea that changing times and circumstances would require new and unique measures was one well recognized by the framers, hence, a ready made apparatus for that change was baked in. They recognized early on that while taking great pains to create a comprehensive and thoughtful document, additional modifications would be needed in future years to meet the nation’s changing needs. Fair enough, but since Amendments become part of that document, is it not consistent that, “to meet the nation’s changing needs” might not already agreed upon Amendments need to changed, repealed or modified at a later date? Should Amendments be given any special reverence or treatment, separated from the body, since they were “additions”, can’t those additions be added to (or subtracted) through the exact same amendment process.

What I would like to focus on today is a section of the 14th Amendment, the Citizenship Clause, which was taken from the Civil Rights Act of 1866:

The Act declared that people born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power are entitled to be citizens

Now I should admit up front that I have not given this much thought and it is clearly understood that those Washington goofs have bigger fish to fry and more impending problems on their plate then to consider any Amendment amendments, but I find it odd that so many folks squeeze that hair trigger of theirs in their negativity to even discussing the matter. And it begs the question, is there anything so sacred or holy about this provision that bars even an adult discussion on the matter? If we admit that the Amendment process was designed to address “changing needs” and that the 14th Amendment was written about 150 years ago, and primarily to address the issue of slaves becoming citizens, and also admitting that illegal immigration is a big problem, the founders not anticipating that whole anchor baby concept, is not at least a discussion warranted?

I’m not going to take sides on this (yet) but am wondering:

Why should the USA honor citizenship for illegals that streak across the border seconds before their moment of conception?
If illegals broke the law in crossing our borders, should bad (illegal) behavior be rewarded?
Could not the Citizenship Clause be the impetus for the illegal immigration problem in the first place?
Given the onerous burden illegal immigrants place on the social programs of the individual states, would not nipping this in the bud by removing the carrot better the finances and balance sheets of states already hemorrhaging at the gills?
Does not this clause make a mockery of the citizenship process legal immigrants must follow, creating a laughable double standard and encouraging criminality?

Hit any and all points that strike your fancy.

I expect the left to demonize any legitimate attempt at debate on this issue, but the question stands, is it worthy of debate or do we just assume that some subjects are so sacrosanct that the mere discussion deserves a woodshed beating?

Comments are closed.

The Act declared that people born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power are entitled to be citizens

Arguably, the second half of this sentence means that illegal immigrants children don’t necessarily get citizenship. While the word “subject” has many meanings, one is :
“being under dominion, rule, or authority, as of a sovereign, state, or some governing power; owing allegiance or obedience (often followed by to ).”

Non-citizens are almost all* citizens of another country, therefore they are “subject to [a] . . . foreign power”. Most states grant citizenship to the children of their citizens living abroad, therefore their children are also “subject to [a] . . . foreign power”.

Since I know this will engender a bit of ranting, before you dismiss this, please tell me what the word “subject” means in the clause above.

*I say “almost all” because there are a few stateless individuals, but the number is, no doubt, vanishingly small.

Since I know this will engender a bit of ranting, before you dismiss this, please tell me what the word “subject” means in the clause above.

Since I usually adopt the Ockham’s razor’s approach to most explanations, I would say that “be subject to” infers an obligation of allegiance or duty, that by the singular act of crossing a border with intent to habitate you are not violating any “subject” laws.

Since all legal immigrants must take an oath of allegiance as a condition of citizenship (and illegals that are granted citizenship by birth do not) if there was a new law requiring those that got citizenship this way to also take the oath, would this make the Citizenship Clause less odious to you?

Since I usually adopt the Ockham’s razor’s approach to most explanations, I would say that “be subject to” infers an obligation of allegiance or duty, that by the singular act of crossing a border with intent to habitate you are not violating any “subject” laws.

I’m a little confused; are you agreeing with me? If you are a citizen of another country, then you certainly have an obligation of allegiance until you renounce that citizenship. The act of crossing a border does not in any way remove that.

I suppose if illegals formally renounced their citizenship before giving birth, then they would no longer be subject to their home country. I am willing to bet huge amounts of money that this is not common.

There was a little kerfuffle a year or two ago about the Mexican government facilitating voting for Mexican citizens illegally in the US. The act of voting in a foreign election should certainly establish the the person still considers themselves to be subject to that country, right?

Since all legal immigrants must take an oath of allegiance as a condition of citizenship (and illegals that are granted citizenship by birth do not) if there was a new law requiring those that got citizenship this way to also take the oath, would this make the Citizenship Clause less odious to you?

The last amnesty did require an oath of allegiance, if memory serves. Most current proposals do as well.

The clause is not odious to me; current application is.

There was an interesting piece on the children or embassy personel in the US. If the Bolivian Ambassador gives birth in Wahington DC, one would assume that the child does not get birthright citizenship (an ambassador is certianly subject to Bolivia). There is, apparently, no means to track this, so the US born children of foreign diplomats almost certainly can get citizenship.

I am kinda babbling here. The dread gout is screaming through my right toe knuckle and sweet sweet Vicodin is battling with sweet sweet caffeine for control of my brain. Hopefully I was reasonably coherent-go caffeine. Now I shall lapse into incoherence-go Vicodin (‘Lapse into, you’re already there mister,” says the little Vicoden elf on my shoulder). Methinks my immediate future lies with “The Incredibles” and my 6 year old.

Interesting topic. To me (nota bene), the word subject here means when you’re subject to the active duties of another nation. Foreign diplomats would fit that description. Ordinary citizens from wherever would not. Dual citizenship therefore, should be allowed, according to law.

As if that’s right or not is an entirely different question. The US way of awarding citizenship according to place of birth alone, is not very common globally. To me it’s not a left-right issue. I have no problems with people who wants to amend the Constitution in this regard.

I would however, want it to become easier for immigrants everywhere, to becoming citizens of whichever country they choose. I want the rich world to be much more generous in this regard. The US and the EU should both have an Ellis Island type of approach to immigration.

I would be much more in favor of an Ellis island approach if it weren’t for the overwhelming burden of the social programs already in place. An open policy would basically just flood the roles with a majority of people who do not add more than they take out in regards to national and state budgets.

What I’m saying that geography or lineage does not of themselves constitute the “subject” standing, you can’t pick your parents or what country you were born in so “allegiance” is not fulfilled. Now if you are a member of the military, a diplomat, or a new citizen were an oath was taken, different story.

As a pragmatist I’m not suggesting open borders, but a move in a freedom oriented direction seems like the right thing to do. I makes my bleeding leftist(?) heart feel all warm inside. It should be made easier to migrate, not harder as it’s becoming today. Fortress EU/US needs to come to a halt, and even to be put in reverse.

It’s easy to look at recent history and see how America essentially was built by lax immigration laws. “Don’t be a hardened criminal”, should be the standard. If you’re not, then welcome. If we can’t swallow the burden, then put some restrictions up, but we should try to side with freedom.

I can understand and relate to the idea of siding with Freedom. The issue is that factions of our country want to perma-link Freedom with entitlement, and that is *not* what America was founded on.
One other issue is that of the unfortunate aspect of terrorism. There are many more people who want to, and more importantly have the means to, injure large numbers of people at one time than 100 years ago. It’s a difficult balance between Freedom and Safety, to be sure.
Wanting people to have access/mobility in regards to nations of the World is not just a leftist ideal. I think it’s safe to say many people across the spectrum want that. Where they differ is in the execution and guidelines of that ideal.

Kimpost, how’s that muslim immigration in your part of Europe working out for ya’ll?

Immigration has worked much like a business in the private sector. For the first two hundred years or so we hired all applicants in order to settle this vast country.
Now because of an economic down-turn we need only the best and brightest to fill any empty immigration slots.

You mean the rise of the Caliphate? Most of us ignore it. I might reconsider when radicals have formed political parties, and when those parties have gained popular support. I’d estimate that to happen any century now. Racism and Islamophobia are quite frankly bigger problems than Islamic radicalisation is over here.

I’m not quite getting your George Orwell (assuming you meant Eastasia) reference. We are giving up personal freedoms in the interest of security, just as you are. Which is annoying, and something that might even be dangerous in the long run, in my opinion. But that’s coming from our governments, not from Islam.

The problem with your line of reasoning on migration is that it’s anti freedom. For us in the rich world it might be an annoyance, but for people in the third world, our protectionism is more than that. We use them as pawns in a game of real politics, where we are raping them for their natural resources, and then we award them with trade tariffs and closed borders.

Does it have to be them or us? I certainly don’t think so. With freedom we can all prosper.

Ah, yes. This ignoring of issues has oft been repeated through history. Some people then ended not being around to speak of the error of their ways. I guess that’s why the saying goes “History repeats itself”, meaning really that people make the same mistakes others did in the past – not seeing the pattern until it is too late – and the train has left the station.

When I was younger and less practical I often wondered why with all the obvious signs pointing to WWI and then to WII, the Cold War, and so on, including the world’s current economic/fiscal crisis, nobody took action, and now that I am older and wiser, see the problem is that the majority of people, especially amongst the spineless ruler class, tend to always hope ignoring something, especially something real bad with no clear cut easy solution, will make the problem go away.

Your cavalier answer does nothing to negate the prevailing attitude in Sweden that your very culture is being murdered right before your eyes. No other nation on the planet has had their very heritage threatened more then Sweden. You may not feel that way but many many of your citizens do. You have entire cities now that are run by Sharia, turned into ghettos where the police are afraid to even enter. Last year the Israeli Davis Cup team played a tie against Sweden in Malmo, remember that? for those that don’t follow Davis Cup, Malmo has a large Muslim population, they did not take kindly to Jews coming in to their community, even for a friendly(?) sports event. After rioting in the streets threatened the entire event, it was held in empty arenas, in the 100 plus year history of Davis Cup this is unprecedented. Not only was Sweden the laughing stock of the tennis world, but Davis Cup spanked them with their biggest fine in history. The beauty of the whole incident was that the Israeli team pulled out a massive upset and beat Sweden.

If you like, I can post about a dozen youtube videos from real Swedes who feel their whole culture is threatened and will disappear unless radical changes are made with your immigration policy.

Your cavalier answer does nothing to negate the prevailing attitude in Sweden that your very culture is being murdered right before your eyes. No other nation on the planet has had their very heritage threatened more then Sweden. You may not feel that way but many many of your citizens do.

I don’t know what to say. My guess is that you’ve read too many British islamophobic blogs. “No other nation on the planet…”? I’m sorry but that’s just crazy. How is our culture being murdered?

You have entire cities now that are run by Sharia, turned into ghettos where the police are afraid to even enter.

The usual islamophobic myth – according to the Internets – is Malmo, but I saw “cities” so I guess there are others too now? How are our cities run by Sharia?

Last year the Israeli Davis Cup team played a tie against Sweden in Malmo, remember that? for those that don’t follow Davis Cup, Malmo has a large Muslim population, they did not take kindly to Jews coming in to their community, even for a friendly(?) sports event. After rioting in the streets threatened the entire event, it was held in empty arenas, in the 100 plus year history of Davis Cup this is unprecedented.

The Muslim population of Malmo had nothing to do with the decision. There were more Swedish demonstrators, than there were Muslims. It was a political protest aimed at Israel for its apartheid like treatment of the Palestinians. Voices were even raised in parliament for stopping the match, but nothing officially happened.

Anyway, some groups took to the streets, and local politicians took a cowardly and easy way out, and ordered an empty arena. They claimed that it was for security reasons, buy few believed them. The political parties who voted for the empty arena, also happened to be quite critical of Israel. This was more about punk-politics than it was about security. They should have played the match, the police could have handled the protests, which were mostly peaceful. The parts that weren’t were the usual suspects in these cases (anti-fascists, most of whom are Swedes, not Muslim).

If you like, I can post about a dozen youtube videos from real Swedes who feel their whole culture is threatened and will disappear unless radical changes are made with your immigration policy.

Guess you’re not a ‘real Swede’ Kimpost. Something your parents obviously neglected to tell you (I’d have a word!) ;-)

Rich, it wasn’t long ago that you suggested that the opinion of a single clearly-politically-biased Brit living in the US was able to be taken as a reflection of Brits as a whole. But now you’re saying that because Kimpost (who actually lives in Sweden) disagrees with your take, he’s not a ‘real’ Swede? WTF? How does that work?

CM, what the hell are you talking about? that whole comment was totally nonsensical.

Guess you’re not a ‘real Swede’ Kimpost.

Who said he is not a real swede, show me?

Rich, it wasn’t long ago that you suggested that the opinion of a single clearly-politically-biased Brit living in the US was able to be taken as a reflection of Brits as a whole.

Gee, that’s not how I remember it at all. You guys were ragging on Nile because (at this stage in his life) he is living in the US and somehow translated that into him not having the pulse of any Brits, and I claimed horseshit on all of that, I never said he spoke for all Brits.

But now you’re saying that because Kimpost (who actually lives in Sweden) disagrees with your take, he’s not a ‘real’ Swede?

Where did I say that? Where did I even imply that? That was really a cheap (and inaccurate) shot.

How does that work?

How does it work? Honestly, I did not even respond to Kimposts’ comment, only the “Caliphate” crack, but I point out that there are many Swedes who are not happy with the way their nation is being strangled by Islam (even Kimpost knows this, hence his statement ,”I’m sure you can”) and have the links to back it up and you somehow interpret that as me saying Kimpost is not a real Swede. seriously, that was one of your dumber comments.

Kimpost can see with his own eyes (since he lives there) what I can only read about, his observations are as worthy as any Swedes. but that does nothing to negate the simple fact that a large percentage of Swedes do not feel the same way he does.

If you like, I can post about a dozen youtube videos from real Swedes who feel their whole culture is threatened and will disappear unless radical changes are made with your immigration policy.

My bolding.
So who are the ‘unreal’ Swedes? The obvious interpretation would be those Swedes who don’t agree. I.e. Kimpost.

Gee, that’s not how I remember it at all. You guys were ragging on Nile because (at this stage in his life) he is living in the US and somehow translated that into him not having the pulse of any Brits, and I claimed horseshit on all of that, I never said he spoke for all Brits.

That’s certainly not how I remember it. I was ragging on you for putting up some crap written by Nile as if he spoke for all Brits. He inferred that he did so, much of what he wrote was demonstrably inaccurate or half-a-story, but you seemed to simply accept that he did. However there was plenty of evidence to show that he was a one-trick pony (his writing is just one anti-Obama piece after another).

That was really a cheap (and inaccurate) shot.

If I’m misintepreted what you wrote then I’d be happy to look at it again and apologise where necessary.

but I point out that there are many Swedes who are not happy with the way their nation is being strangled by Islam (even Kimpost knows this, hence his statement ,”I’m sure you can”)

Um, yeah I’m pretty sure Kimpost was being saracastic when he wrote that (as if posting some youtube videos somehow demonstrates the extent of such attitudes).

Kimpost can see with his own eyes (since he lives there) what I can only read about, his observations are as worthy as any Swedes. blockquote>

He can see with his eyes and draw on experience that you’ll never read about. You can only read about what some people decide to write about.

but that does nothing to negate the simple fact that a large percentage of Swedes do not feel the same way he does.

I’d certainly be happy to look at any evidence you might have on that (e.g. polling).

So who are the ‘unreal’ Swedes? The obvious interpretation would be those Swedes who don’t agree. I.e. Kimpost.

Oh, that is just so weak, is that the best you can do? Look at this logically for a moment. I was making a comment about stuff that I have read (and seen) from people that live in Sweden and it was in refutation from what another Swede (Kimpost) said. Now how silly would I look if I offered a rebuttal to what is going on in Sweden from an American point of view? Of course if I’m going to make a point about what is going on in Sweden, I am going to use sources from “real Swedes”. but this does not mean (like I should have to explain this to any thinking person) that I was saying Kimpost was not a real Swede, DUH.

I was ragging on you for putting up some crap written by Nile as if he spoke for all Brits

Does it make sense to you that anyone could speak for everyone from his home nation? Seriously? Could I possibly speak for all Americans? Nobody said Nile speaks for all Brits, that is just dumb.

as if posting some youtube videos somehow demonstrates the extent of such attitudes

So news excerpts from Sweden where real Swedes voice their concern about their culture being lost to you does not “demonstrates the extent of such attitudes”?

How does it work? Honestly, I did not even respond to Kimposts’ comment, only the “Caliphate” crack, but I point out that there are many Swedes who are not happy with the way their nation is being strangled by Islam (even Kimpost knows this, hence his statement ,”I’m sure you can”) and have the links to back it up and you somehow interpret that as me saying Kimpost is not a real Swede. seriously, that was one of your dumber comments.

Kimpost can see with his own eyes (since he lives there) what I can only read about, his observations are as worthy as any Swedes. but that does nothing to negate the simple fact that a large percentage of Swedes do not feel the same way he does.

Sweden does not exist in a vacuum. There’s obviously racism, bigotry and xenophobia here, just as there is pretty much everywhere. There are also radical Muslims here, even if I would suggest that they are few.

Are there “many” swedes who are disappointed with our immigration laws, because they feel that we let too many people in? Yes, I would say that there are. But going from there to fearing the rise of a Caliphate, or to fearing official implementation of Sharia law, or even feeling generally strangled by Islam – would be quite a leap.

Those sentiments do exist, just like white supremacy does. But neither is mainstream.

Again, what did you mean by ‘real Swedes’?
“Real” as opposed to what? I’m clearly not understanding what you mean by that.

You said “the prevailing attitude in Sweden that your very culture is being murdered right before your eyes”. That’s a definitive statement someone can only make if it’s clear and obvious that it’s the case.

Does it make sense to you that anyone could speak for everyone from his home nation? Seriously? Could I possibly speak for all Americans? Nobody said Nile speaks for all Brits, that is just dumb.

That’s essentially what you were trying to argue – it seemed that no matter what I found to counter Nile’s contention about what Brits thought, you’d prefer his opinion simply because he’s a Brit.
I’ve just been back to try and find it but I can’t. The search feature doesn’t seem to work very well (searching by ‘Nile’ brings up no hits).

So news excerpts from Sweden where real Swedes voice their concern about their culture being lost to you does not “demonstrates the extent of such attitudes”?

No, it would simply demonstates that those attitudes exist. Individuals voicing concerns on issues does nothing to suggest that it’s the “prevailing” attitude. Strong opinions on anything are always disproportionately reported. But you’ve already stated that it’s the “prevailing attitude” and that Kimpost is simply being “cavalier” in his response to the issue.

Again, what did you mean by ‘real Swedes’?
“Real” as opposed to what? I’m clearly not understanding what you mean by that.

Well, there is nothing I can do about that, I think I have explained the statement adequately, but to tell you the truth I think you are just being obtuse.

That’s essentially what you were trying to argue – it seemed that no matter what I found to counter Nile’s contention about what Brits thought, you’d prefer his opinion simply because he’s a Brit.

What I was trying to argue was that Nile, as a Brit, can speak for what Brits think. You kept waylaying the point by saying that he lives in the US now, who cares? He is as adequate to speak for Brits as Kimpost is to speak for Swedes, obviously no one speaks for everyone, another Duh moment.

But you’ve already stated that it’s the “prevailing attitude” and that Kimpost is simply being “cavalier” in his response to the issue.

Sorry, but you got the sequences all wrong, Kimposts’ statement was in reply to what M.Y. said about Muslim immigration in Europe. His mention of the caliphate was obviously a joke since Sweden as a state does not live under Sharia Law, I wasn’t even in the mix yet so his caliphate statement had nothing to do with me and he was NOT responding to anything I said about a prevailing sentiment.

What I was trying to argue was that Nile, as a Brit, can speak for what Brits think.

Uh, how so? This would be a Duh moment (I guess I can start putting that everywhere too). How does nationality mean that someone can claim to speak for everyone? He can speak for what HE thinks, and what he THINKS Brits think. But unless he’s got something to back it up (polling data etc) then it’s a narrative.

You kept waylaying the point by saying that he lives in the US now, who cares? He is as adequate to speak for Brits as Kimpost is to speak for Swedes,.

Woah, now that’s a gross mispresentation, I simply corrected you on the fact that he doesn’t live there (you used that as part of your argument). No way did I let that ‘waylay’ anything.

obviously no one speaks for everyone, another Duh moment

This is what is confusing – you seem to think you know what the prevailing attitude in Sweden is, but it seems to be based on some select individual opinions. From people you consider ‘real Swedes’ (whatever that means).

Kimposts’ statement was in reply to what M.Y. said about Muslim immigration in Europe. His mention of the caliphate was obviously a joke since Sweden as a state does not live under Sharia Law,

He was referring to the belief of some right-wingers that Islam (including moderate Muslims) are still attempting to create a caliphate, and that it is a very real threat, paricularly in Europe. He’s mocking it, because some people (not in Europe) seem to have very strange ideas about what is actually happening in Europe.

I wasn’t even in the mix yet so his caliphate statement had nothing to do with me and he was NOT responding to anything I said about a prevailing sentiment.

Your statement about his attitude being cavalier is only because you seem to have a clear idea about the prevailing attitude in Sweden (which is at odds with Kimposts view). He put some questions back to you which you’re still to answer (e.g. about how the culture is being murdered, and about all those entire cities run under sharia law).

“But as in many other cities across Europe, a rapidly growing Muslim population living in segregated conditions that seem to breed alienation has mixed toxically with the anger directed at Israeli policies and actions by those Muslims — and by many non-Muslims — to all but transform the lives of local Jews. Like many of their counterparts in other European cities, the Jews of Malmo report being subjected increasingly to threats, intimidation and actual violence as stand-ins for Israel”

How about this? more of those real Swedes that think immigration has hurt their country.

We already discussed Malmo, a place where even Kimpost admits that the Muslims and other Swedish protestors could not control themselves and separate themselves from a sporting event to the point that history (and embarrassment) was made by closing down the venues to spectators, well done.

And I’ll close with my favorite atheist, who is another European, keenly aware what is going on.

The Forward article was actually quite fair. I was expecting misrepresentation (not because it came from you hist_ed, but because Internet is loaded with so much crap), but instead the article actually addressed some of the problems, and the magnitude of them.

If Jews really are leaving or just thinking about it isn’t very important. What’s important is how they feel about their situation. Their problems need to be taken seriously. Just as the young angry men of Rosengard needs to be taken seriously.

Look, Sweden has issues. Integration is not, and has bot been, smooth sailing. It requires hard work, and dialogue. Especially in financially difficult times. We clearly need to do better. Hopefully we can do that without falling for the temptation of closing our borders. I frankly don’t want us to become Denmark or Finland in that regard…

Having said that, I think I’ve got a fair grasp of the Swedish society. If I thought that there was a significant sentiment of a strangled Swedish culture, or worse – that Swedes fear Sharia law or a pending Caliphate, then I would say so. Those sentiments are virtually non-existent outside the fringes.

Who said anything of the sort? My comments were purely about the many outlandish and unsupported claims Rich made in his initial post. I’m not claiming there are no issues, or that anecdotal evidence counts for nothing.Look at what Rich actually claimed.

CM, not that I would expect any of the following links to convince you of anything, you have proven before that once you make up your mind, you will obfuscate away anything contrary to that.

Of course the other alternative is the attempt at convincing has been poor. I actually did have my opinion changed on more than one subject during discussions at MW forums. But sure, keep the big outlandish simplistic claims coming…..

You could spend a few hours chewing on all the links provided here, once you have gone through that, don’t forget the related stories at the bottom.

Sure, I’m more than happy to read it all.

Regarding “prevailing sentiment”, is 73% prevailing enough for you?

Not quite the same thing though. You said the “prevailing attitude in Sweden [is] that your very culture is being murdered right before your eyes. No other nation on the planet has had their very heritage threatened more then Sweden”. Whereas that 73% relates to the percent of Swedes “who see integration and immigration as a problem in the country”. Not who consider that their culture is being murdered by Muslims. Interestingly, the survey also showed that “74 percent of the 1,000 Swedes interviewed believe that experts and scholars hold the necessary knowledge to handle the issues of immigration and integration “in a positive way”.”

Bare Naked Islam and Limits to Growth are both examples of anti immigration and culture war propaganda.

Have fun reading about Sweden, from a white supremacist perspective.

I have seen this dodge before, sully the messenger in an attempt to sully the message. What makes all this propaganda and are they lying? There is not only many articles penned by real Swedes (I’m only still using that term because despite several explanations CM still does not understand my meaning) but many video’s interviewing them. I think it does them a disservice to poo poo their concerns because they are posted on what you consider a white supremacist site. What on that site is not factual?

The question is; Is Islam the reason? My answer would be that it is not. Thinking that it is, is oversimplifying a complicated subject. I’d even call it stupid.

As I said before, I am always open to a better argument and am willing to be persuaded if I’m mis informed in any way. I respect your opinion and if you think BNI is inaccurate then I will view their stuff with a more discerning eye in the future.

But I followed that whole Malmo incident last year, and I gotta tell you, I was shocked and it was an eye opener, to see 100 plus year tradition turned on it’s head. Sweden really looked bad to the rest of the world.

I have seen this dodge before, sully the messenger in an attempt to sully the message.

Yes they are absolutely lying, but what’s even more common is cherry picking of data that suits their narrative. And then of course there’s the narrative itself – they don’t just report facts, they have opinions on them too. Racist opinions.

I usually deplore people who are casually using the race card, but in this case it’s down right impossible not to see it. Bare Naked Islam is a racist site. I don’t even think they are trying to hide it.

Starting off with SWEDEN: Death of a nation, it’s packed with misrepresentation after misrepresentation of the Swedish Constitution. And the overall assessment of the article boils down to:

Multiculturalism becomes imperative, the power centralized in the Big Brother state, the municipalities will lose much of their autonomy and the Swedish citizenship becomes a worthless dummy.

Yeah, right. Yes, the EU, is now part of our constitution, and as such we are subject to EU law. But that’s nothing new, we were so already, by treaty obligations. Regarding multiculturalism you’ll need to wear your biggest tinfoil hat to see a nefarious mandate in the language of the law. There’s a text protecting the rights of minorities, primarily our native population. It goes like this.

[…]The opportunities of the Sami people and ethnic, linguistic and religious minorities to preserve and develop a cultural and social life of their own shall be promoted.

It’s really hard to objectively disagree with any of it, but looking hard through a racist tainted lens, apparently helps in that regard. In the minds of white supremacists we are now mandated to promote the Islamization of Sweden. Ridiculous, anyone?

Speaking of ridiculous. Are these youtube clips for real? You really don’t smell the racism in them? I find them disgusting and pathetic. And they are used to spice up what seems to be their crown jewel article of Sweden.

Bare Naked Islam gets so many things wrong. Does anyone actually think that the following makes sense? Are they likely true? Of course they aren’t. In fact they aren’t addressed in the constitution – at all.

The school is obliged to offer not only the mother tongue education but education in all languages and dialects.

Health services have to employ staff who speak all possible languages and dialects, such as Swahili, Pashto and Dari.

Alright, well, I guess we are at an impasse, which is fine. You say BNI is racist and gets most stuff wrong even though they post links written by real Swedes and videos made by real Swedes interviewing real Swedes about what real Swedes believe, but you think that is racist, OK.

The videos that they post showing things like be headings, stoning, murder (like the Taliban executing all those Afghan policemen last week) and interviews from real women who have been abused threatened, and attacked by Muslims, all this stop is just made up?

Last year when I read about the Malmo riots in the paper, I had no idea about the severity and the hate going on, until I visited BNI and saw the videos for myself.

Do you discount the literally dozens of sources on that site, sources from real Swedes that are none to happy about the immigration avalanche, the drain on the welfare state, the ramped up crime wave, and the ghettoization of many Swede citties, you dismiss all of this as either untrue or racist propaganda?

Did you look at the Pat Condell video I posted? He made a number of claims, such as:

A Constitutional change without popular consent that allows non Swedish citizens to hold high office.
That Sweden is now the rape capitol of the world and the majority of the rapists are Muslims.
That newspapers are subsidized with government funds (an unholy alliance) so journalists routinely censor the news with the governments wishes in mind.
That Jews do not feel safe living in Sweden because of this new islamization and are leaving in droves.

Sometimes I think we should just drop the nesting in the comment section. I’ll post my reply here, at root level.

Alright, well, I guess we are at an impasse, which is fine. You say BNI is racist and gets most stuff wrong even though they post links written by real Swedes and videos made by real Swedes interviewing real Swedes about what real Swedes believe, but you think that is racist, OK.

I’ve looked at all the videos I could find, and found few Swedish interviews. I found one CNN interview with Lars Vilks (the artist) and one CBN News piece on Malmo, where a couple of Swedes said something, mainly a Sweden Democrat (our nationalist party) and a Danish infamous (not Swedish but close enough) anti-immigration advocate.

The videos that they post showing things like be headings, stoning, murder (like the Taliban executing all those Afghan policemen last week) and interviews from real women who have been abused threatened, and attacked by Muslims, all this stop is just made up?

They are probably real, but anecdotal. Anyway, are people really surprised by Al Qaeda or Taliban atrocities? And, this has little to do with Sweden.

Last year when I read about the Malmo riots in the paper, I had no idea about the severity and the hate going on, until I visited BNI and saw the videos for myself.

Which videos would that be? All I could find was this. You can see a riot here and a riot there, from anywhere in the world and use that to draw conclusions, but it might paint a distorted picture. How’s Canada after the Vancouver/Stanley Cup riots? Not in flames I presume?

Do you discount the literally dozens of sources on that site, sources from real Swedes that are none to happy about the immigration avalanche, the drain on the welfare state, the ramped up crime wave, and the ghettoization of many Swede citties, you dismiss all of this as either untrue or racist propaganda?

There are snippets of truth in many stories, but the overall sentiment the messengers are trying to portray is false. There is no immigration avalanche. Immigration is not draining the welfare state. There is no immigrant related crime wave, and ghetto is too strong of a term.

Did you look at the Pat Condell video I posted? He made a number of claims, such as:
A Constitutional change without popular consent that allows non Swedish citizens to hold high office.
That Sweden is now the rape capitol of the world and the majority of the rapists are Muslims.
That newspapers are subsidized with government funds (an unholy alliance) so journalists routinely censor the news with the governments wishes in mind.
That Jews do not feel safe living in Sweden because of this new islamization and are leaving in droves.
Are all these things wrong?

– I’ve seen that particular Condell movie before. Although I sometimes find him to be funny, and on rare occasions even to have a point, he’s way off base here. Sweden is not the rape capitol of the world. Our rape statistics are higher than you would expect, but there are statistical reasons for that. The most important one is that we have a wider definition of rape than most countries. During the last couple of decades we’ve widened the definition two times, and both naturally lead to artificially higher numbers. The second reason is that we’ve got a higher report rate than most.

– The constitutional amendment was passed by all major parties except for one (The Sweden Democrats, with 5% support). There never was a public outcry against it. Nor should there have been, since it’s mostly uncontroversial – in my opinion. Especially the parts about protecting minorities. They were already protected before, they just revised the language in that regard.

– Swedish newspapers aren’t generally subsidized. Some papers receive funds, but they are few, small and as such have little impact. Big media here has no problems whatsoever going after the government. That includes public service (TV & radio).

– I have no idea if Jews are leaving Sweden or not. I’ve tried to look for statistics, but haven’t found any. I would generally doubt that they are leaving in droves, though. I found one story about a Jew from Malmo leaving for Israel, and in that piece a figure of 5% was mentioned (regarding the Jews in Malmo). If that’s true, then we would be looking at numbers like twenty or thirty.

Swedish newspapers aren’t generally subsidized. Some papers receive funds, but they are few, small and as such have little impact. Big media here has no problems whatsoever going after the government. That includes public service (TV & radio).

The public funded media here (especially on Radio NZ National) are some of the harshest critics of the government. In the UK the hardest-hitting interviews I saw were on BBC.

Fair enough. As with most people when I am digging for information and trying to educate myself I consider the source, and since I have found you to be reasonable and respect your opinion, I will re evaluate my opinion in this matter.

It is interesting that after posting my last comment here a few days ago, I did some more digging and found a bunch more stuff reinforcing the Sweden will be lost as a culture/the first European nation to be majority Muslim theme but with some I could not tell if they were written by European types like Condell, or from Swedes living in Sweden. Something that you say is not happening (the islamization of your nation) sure has gained traction with the rest of the world.

The blogosphere works like that though, doesn’t it? One says one thing and the rest follows. Of the approximately 100.000 we let in every year, around 10.000 come from Muslim dominated countries. But then 2.000 of them leave every year too, so we are left with 8.000, of which we have no idea if they are practising Muslims, to what degree they practice, or even if they are Muslims at all (Christian minorities sometimes flee from Muslim countries).

I have no idea what constitutes a flooded country, but I fail to see the urgency here. Sweden won’t become a Muslim country any time soon, unless we speed things up significantly.

Kimpost, what are the birth rates of native Swedes? What are the birthrates of Muslim immigrants? What are the immigration rates?

If Sweden is like every almost other country in Europe, natives will be a minority some time in the next century. That might not be a big problem of the immigrants were mostly assimilating. Is that happening in Sweden or do most Mulsim immigrant live in Muslim enclaves?

This is not totally unrelated, a PEW research poll on views of Islam, Christianity and the Jewish faiths, and what they think of each other based on the country in which they reside. Interesting reading.

Interesting information Balthazar. While it is not about Sweden, I found this to be germane to our discussion:
“There is a widespread perception that Muslims living in the West do not want to assimilate. Majorities in Europe and the U.S. think Muslims wish to remain distinct from the rest of society, instead of embracing the way of life in Western nations. More than two-thirds in Germany and Spain believe Muslims do not want to adopt national customs.”

Difficult to get that statistics since we don’t track religious beliefs that way. We are left with estimates based on nationality. Some say that Swedish women have a 1.5 birth rate and that Muslim’s have that at 2.3, but that those rates drop by generations. Regardless if they are assimilated enough, it’s inevitable that people are influenced by the surrounding dominant culture.

I generally don’t care about things like preserving a clean Swedish ethnicity. We are highly westernised, free and democratic, and that’s something that pretty much everyone agrees with – including immigrant Muslims, except for the extreme few.

We do have problems with integration, and there are indeed some immigration enclaves. I don’t know if most live in them, but I would say that too many do.

Some aspects of our policies have failed, because of different reasons. Most of which are political, and as such can be rectified. Having asylum processes reaching over years doesn’t help, since people aren’t allowed to work or go to school (well, children are allowed, but not adults) during that time.